This is not one of my usual essays analysing the EO market or proposing a new framework – it is an idea for the future of EO that I have been conceptualizing about for a while.
It is mainly for a small group of people who think about Earth observation governance and in general, the future of EO. If that's not you, feel free to skip. But if you have ever thought deeply about EO being a global foundational infrastructure, that is essential to society, businesses and the environment, this is my attempt to discuss what EO stewardship could look like.
What follows is not a full-blown proposal - it is a structured sketch of an idea I would like to explore with others in the community. As always, I am always open to hearing your thoughts!
My previous essay argued that commercial Earth observation (EO) cannot replace public science missions - that continuity, open data, and calibration require institutional commitment that markets alone cannot provide. The response was encouraging, with positive feedback from several individuals including senior leadership.
But that essay was mostly about the United States: NASA, Landsat, the science-as-a-service debate. The reality is, EO is not an American responsibility alone. It is global infrastructure. Climate monitoring, disaster response systems, food security, and countless other applications depend on sustained observations of the entire planet - not just the parts that any single country cares about.
So if we agree that the baseline data for EO would need to stay under the public sector, whose responsibility is it, what do we need to ensure a trusted, global observation system and most importantly, how do we secure political commitment - not just technical coordination - across borders?
EO Is Global, Stewardship Is Not
EO underpins systems that cross every border: climate science, weather forecasting, disaster response, agricultural monitoring, maritime surveillance. The data is global by nature.
But the infrastructure that produces this data is fragmented. A handful of wealthy countries - the US, Europe, Japan, India, China - operate the missions that the world depends on. Everyone else is a consumer.
Meanwhile, the landscape is shifting:
More countries are launching EO satellites than ever before. According to our analysis, over 45 nations have announced, launched, or are planning EO missions, mainly with a dual-use perspective. A few of them are national prestige missions motivated by economic and political wins while most of them are sophisticated but mainly serving national EO needs rather than contribute to existing shared global infrastructure (like Landsat or Sentinel).
Defense dominates. Much of the investment in EO is driven by national security. That data will never be shared, and that is fine - defense programs have different imperatives. But civilian EO missions - the data that supports disaster response and sustainable development - lacks the kind of structured political coordination that weather data has through the World Meteorological Organization.
The Status Quo
The US may be stepping back in Earth science. Budget pressures and political shifts suggest the US may not want to foot the bill for global EO infrastructure indefinitely. If others do not step up, who fills the gap?
Europe is leading - but for how long? The EU operates Copernicus, the largest civilian EO program in the world. But even Copernicus is not immune to political shocks. Brexit created a €750 million funding gap that put six planned missions at risk, including CO2M for greenhouse gas monitoring. The UK eventually rejoined in 2023, but the episode showed how quickly political disruption can threaten even the most established programs.
China is rising. Chinese EO capabilities are growing rapidly, and there are already calls for China to open its civilian data. If the US and Europe retreat, China could fill the vacuum - on its own terms.
The result is a paradox: EO has never been more important, and more countries are investing in it than ever - yet there is no framework for shared stewardship. No agreement on who is responsible for what. No mechanism to prevent duplication or ensure continuity.
The Sentinel-1B Case Study
When things go wrong, the consequences are real. On 23 December 2021, the Sentinel-1B satellite - a critical source of open source synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data for disaster monitoring, ice tracking, and land observation - failed in orbit. ESA scrambled to fill gaps using commercial and partner data, but some regions had little to no SAR coverage for extended periods until Sentinel-1C launched in late 2024 and became operational in early 2025.
There was no agreed framework for backup. No mechanism that triggered a coordinated response. We limped along with one satellite and ad-hoc arrangements.
With more countries investing in EO, this does not have to happen again. But it will - unless we build something different.
What We Have Today And Why It Is Not Enough
There are existing bodies that coordinate Earth observation internationally, and they do valuable work:
- CEOS (Committee on Earth Observation Satellites) coordinates missions and standards between space agencies. It has been instrumental in harmonizing satellite data and enabling cross-mission calibration.
- GEO (Group on Earth Observations) promotes open data sharing and interoperability through its Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). It has advanced the principle of open access and supported capacity building worldwide.
Both have been around for decades. Both bring together space agencies from around the world. Both have made real contributions to EO coordination.
But they share fundamental limitations: They are primarily agency-to-agency forums.
CEOS and GEO are forums for space agencies to talk to each other. Commercial EO companies - which now operate significant constellations - participate on a case-by-case basis at best. Philanthropic entities, which have missions such as Earth Fire Alliance or Carbon Mapper are often not part of all the discussions. And, most importantly, for me, the end users of EO - the insurance companies, agricultural firms, enterprises from energy, mining, utilities and other sectors who depend on this data for their businesses - have awareness on the future of EO.
This made sense when EO was purely a government activity. It does not reflect the reality of 2025 .
CEOS and GEO coordinate missions. They are voluntary and technical, not political. They do not commit governments to anything. When NASA's budget gets cut, neither CEOS nor GEO can intervene. When Sentinel-1B failed, there was no framework to invoke.
The gap is not technical coordination. It is political commitment.
Weather Satellites Show It Can Work
Before proposing something new, it is worth noting that global coordination of satellite data already works in one domain: weather.
The WMO has coordinated global meteorological data sharing for decades. Countries share weather data freely because everyone benefits and no one gains strategic advantage by hoarding it. The system works because the value of shared data exceeds the value of keeping it secret.
Civilian EO for land, ocean, and atmospheric composition is harder. Some of this data has dual-use potential - high-resolution imagery can reveal infrastructure, military assets, economic activity. That strategic sensitivity is why EO coordination has lagged behind weather.
But, I believe, not all civilian EO is strategically sensitive. Medium-resolution land monitoring, ocean color, atmospheric composition - the kind of data that underpins climate science, agriculture, and disaster response - falls into a category closer to weather than to intelligence. The question is whether we can build a framework for that category, even if some EO will always remain outside it.
What a Multi-Stakeholder EO Accord Could Look Like
What is missing is a political compact for shared stewardship of civilian Earth observation - one that reflects how EO actually works in 2025. Not another UN body. Something different:
- Political, not just technical. Governments commit at the ministerial level, not just through space agencies.
- Multi-stakeholder by design. Commercial operators, philanthropic missions, and end users have structured roles - not occasional consultation.
- Principle-based. A set of shared norms that create expectations and visibility, even without enforcement mechanisms (see below).
- Inclusive from the start. Designed to include major spacefaring nations - including China, India, Brazil - not as an afterthought, but from day one.
For civilian EO infrastructure - which must serve the whole planet - that approach would trigger political resistance from exactly the countries we need at the table. An EO Accord needs a different starting point.
A note on defense
Much of global EO investment is driven by national security, and those programs operate under different imperatives. This Accord is focused on civilian applications and open data. For nations with dual-use systems, it offers a way to separate and contribute civilian capabilities to global infrastructure without compromising security requirements.
To be clear, this will not cover all EO - some data is inherently strategically sensitive and will remain outside any coordination framework. The Accord that I am thinking about focuses on the substantial category of civilian observations that can be shared openly. The scope is civilian data used for civilian purposes only.
Who Participates?
A Global EO Accord would need to reflect the full ecosystem:
Signatories: Governments
Countries operating civilian EO programs commit to the principles. This is where the political weight comes from - not agency working groups, but government-level endorsement.
Participants: Commercial EO Satellite Companies
Commercial companies do not sign government accords, but they can participate under defined terms. What is in it for them? Access to procurement pipelines, influence on standards that affect their products, legitimacy in policy conversations. The Accord also helps clarify where public infrastructure ends and commercial services begin. This clarity is itself an incentive: commercial providers benefit from knowing the boundaries. What do they commit to? Data provenance and integrity standards, interoperability specs, crisis response terms.
This also matters for countries investing in sovereign EO capabilities. If a country wants to build or procure national capacity, commercial providers could be partners under the Accord's common standards - ensuring that new national assets contribute to interoperability rather than fragmentation.
Philanthropic missions - MethaneSAT, Carbon Mapper, Earth Fire Alliance - participate similarly. They are already mission-driven toward public good. The Accord gives them coordination, access to public calibration infrastructure, and a seat in policy discussions.
Advisory Council: End Users
Insurance companies, agricultural giants, energy firms and other major enterprises - they depend on EO data but do not operate satellites. They need a structured voice, especially on continuity decisions. Not a vote, but a seat at the table. When decisions are being made that affect data availability, end users should be in the room - not finding out afterward.
This is the key innovation: not an agency club, but a real ecosystem.
Possible Principles
What would signatories actually commit to? Not legal obligations - norms. A sketch of my thoughts:
1. Continuity as shared obligation. Critical data records - land, ocean, atmospheric composition - must not be allowed to break. If one country cannot sustain a measurement, others coordinate to fill the gap.
2. Open access for foundational datasets. Landsat and Copernicus-style openness as the norm for baseline EO, not the exception. Public infrastructure produces public data.
3. Data integrity and provenance. Commitments to traceable, verifiable EO data - from sensor to product to user. Especially critical in an age of AI-generated imagery where authenticity matters.
4. Interoperability by design. Aligning spectral bands, formats, and standards so data from different systems can be combined and compared.
5. Complementarity, not duplication. Encourage countries to fill gaps rather than build parallel missions for prestige. Forty countries launching EO satellites could mean forty contributions to global infrastructure - or forty isolated national programs. The Accord could push toward the former.
6. Shared crisis responsibilities. Guaranteed access to EO data during disasters - not ad-hoc goodwill, but structured commitments. The Disaster Charter exists, but it is activation-based and limited. A broader norm is needed.
7. Inclusion of emerging space nations. Participation paths for countries that do not yet operate satellites but rely on EO data. The Global South should have voice and access, not just be recipients.
8. A shared understanding of global observation needs. Today we have the US Decadal Survey, ESA science priorities, WMO Essential Climate Variables - but no global, cross-domain view of what we need to observe and who is covering it. An Accord could create that roadmap, giving commercial and philanthropic actors a clear picture of where they could contribute.
From Science to Operations: Shared Responsibility for Continuity
One of the hardest problems in EO governance is the transition from science mission to operational infrastructure.
A mission starts as research - proving a concept, gathering novel measurements. But over time, users come to depend on it. Applications are built. Decisions are made based on the data. And suddenly, what was once experimental is now essential.
Who decides when something transitions from science to operational? Who takes responsibility for continuity when the original research mission ends? It may not always have to be the public sector.
Consider sea level rise monitoring. For some countries, it may be a science mission - interesting data for researchers. For Pacific island nations, it is existential operational infrastructure. Their planning, their investment decisions, their very survival depends on continuous, reliable measurements.
An Accord could help by defining criteria for when measurements become essential infrastructure, not just research; by distributing responsibility across countries based on capability and stake, so continuity does not depend on any single nation's budget cycle; and by showing commercial and philanthropic actors where they could step in - not to replace public missions, but to augment or provide redundancy where it makes sense.
This kind of distributed responsibility for continuity is something the current framework does not provide, and something a global EO Accord could.
The Advocacy Gap
Top-down frameworks need bottom-up pressure to work.
An EO Accord would set norms, but who holds signatories accountable? Who raises the alarm when a critical mission is threatened? Who advocates for EO as global infrastructure in public debate?
There is no equivalent of The Planetary Society for Earth observation - globally, there is no independent organization dedicated to awareness, advocacy, and community-building across the EO ecosystem.
I believe we need one. A body that brings together commercial companies, scientists, end users, and advocates. A voice for EO in policy debates. A community that can push for the Accord's principles even when governments fall short.
The two layers reinforce each other: more awareness and adoption of EO creates demand for coordination; the Accord creates visibility that advocacy can leverage. Top-down and bottom-up, working together.
This is something I want to work on. TerraWatch Space started as a newsletter and consulting practice, but my long-term vision is to build something larger - an independent organization for the global EO community. The Accord and the advocacy layer are connected parts of that vision.
Open Questions
As a reminder, this is a structured sketch, not a full-blown plan. There are several open questions:
- Who convenes? Not the US (maybe too politically charged?). Not the UN (maybe too slow?). Maybe Europe, which already operates the largest civilian EO program? A coalition of countries? Or, maybe an existing body like GEO with expanded mandate?
- How do you include China? Design for inclusivity from day one. Do not build walls that have to be torn down later. Parallel frameworks that interoperate? Direct participation? This is probably the hardest question - and one I do not have a full answer to.
- Accountability without enforcement? The Accord would be voluntary. How do you create real accountability? Visibility helps - public commitments are harder to break quietly. But soft power has limits.
- Relationship to CEOS and GEO? Complement or compete? The Accord could sit above existing bodies as the political layer they lack. Or it could create confusion and fragmentation. This needs careful thought.
- What is in it for countries to join? Burden-sharing: no single country wants to pay for everything. Access: smaller nations get a seat at the table. Legitimacy: being part of global infrastructure stewardship. And for governments skeptical of interdependence: if the Accord sets the standards for data formats and interoperability, non-signatories risk their domestic industries becoming incompatible with the global market.
- The Accord would also need to define contribution expectations - not equal spending, but meaningful commitments based on capability. A country does not have to replace Sentinel to participate, but it cannot simply sign for access without contributing something to the global baseline.
Why Now?
The US may be stepping back from its traditional role. China is stepping up. Commercial EO has matured. The climate crisis is accelerating demand for observations. And we just spent years with degraded global SAR coverage because one satellite failed and there was no backup plan.
There are signs that others are thinking similarly. At the G20 Summit in Johannesburg in November 2025, India proposed a G20 Open Satellite Data Partnership - a political commitment to make G20 satellite data accessible to developing countries for agriculture, fisheries, and disaster management. This is exactly the kind of move that shows momentum for broader coordination: political, not just technical.
If not now, when?
Closing
The previous essay argued that Earth science data is infrastructure - not a service to be procured on-demand, but a foundation that requires institutional commitment.
This essay asks: what kind of global agreements and institutions do we need if we actually take that idea seriously?
I do not have all the answers. But I believe the question is worth asking - and worth working on.
If this resonates, I would love to hear from others thinking about the same problems. This is something I want to explore further - and eventually, to help build. If you are thinking about this too, let us talk.
Until next time,
Aravind
